Globalization Interconnectedness Past and Present Essay

We can go even a further back and argue that globalization, in the logic of a growth in interconnectedness between members of different states, is itself only a special case of something more universal. In medieval Europe most people for most-of the time stayed close to where they were born. They inspired mainly local goods and, primarily, produced either for themselves or for a very local market (Schlossberg H. 1992). Economies were mainly local. Trade over considerable distances took place on water either by sea or river, which accounts for the inconsistent number of towns and villages which were either by the sea or on rivers. Human beings seem to have had a steady urge to detach themselves from the area as much as the technology of the day permitted (J Gray 1992). Certainly there have always been big movements, sometimes of populations looking for better circumstances and of conquerors building empires. Under the Roman Empire, large parts of Europe were ‘globalizing’ in this sense and the degree of globalization declined with the Empire’s retreat. The medieval Church could be seen as several form of globalizing force but the degrees of interaction and interdependence were much reduced in the so-called Dark Ages (Thurow L 1996). Communications are also of significance in considering the ‘nationalization’ of different states. As communications enhanced (which before electronic communication meant, in fact, how fast people could travel), states had much more practical unity. This was mostly true of large states such as Canada and the United States where the railroad meant that people could travel between the major population centers, and numerous of the minor population centers, within two or three days as opposed to weeks. Markets then became national as an instant precursor to becoming international. These changes can all be measured parts of the same process (Herman E and McChesney R 1997). On this view, globalization is a trend which has been going on for centuries, which is undeniably continuing and might be accelerating. In this sense, the present period is not in itself novel. However, Scholte (1997) argues that there is more to globalization than this. For him globalization is not just communication on a global scale but deterritorialisation or superterritorialisation of numerous activities which formerly were tied to some terrain, not as a matter of an accident but as a matter of necessity. Thus, there is efficiently a global stock market. There are twenty-four hours trading in the world as a complete and traders in, say; the Tokyo markets keep a close eye on the London market on a real-time basis. There are differences. Tokyo is not just a postal (or e-mail) address of any implication but these differences are minor compared with the similarities or with the distinctions that existed even thirty years ago. It would most probably be possible to place all the worlds’ stock markets in a single place say on a South Sea island and it would make very little difference. It would perhaps make even less difference if this were to be done in twenty years’ time. (It might be a development. The traders might be so tempted by the sun and the good life that they would spend less time trading. Thus, trade less anxiously, and calm the often totally needless fluctuations in the various financial markets. ) On the other hand, certainly, all the traders could work from home. This is the point. The actual geographical location is trivial (Weiner E. 1992). Basically, Globalization is typically held to be inner to globalizing processes usually with the economic put up as the motor of globalization. This heaves questions not simply about the capability of the nation state to govern and the standing of national companies and economic interests but as well concerning what and who comprises civil society. As suggested by Robertson, the coexistence of nation state and civil society is busted by globalization. This offers the origin for an increase in the power of the market, but as well opens up diverse possibilities for globalize forms of sociality and practices, for what some term globalization from below (Robertson, R. 1992). Here, the connection between state and citizenship might be loosened with people playing a vigorous role in more global networks to address issues of communal concern. National governments become simply a partial focus is still influential for definite forms of popular involvement, as established by such groups as Greenpeace and definite humanitarian groups. Globalization consequently offers possibilities as well as intimidation to the extend of capitalist relations. On the one hand, for example, there is the feminization of labor where: †¦global assembly lines are ‘manned’ by women workers in free trade zones; subcontracted industrial home working is performed at kitchen tables by women who ‘have time on their hands’; home-based teleworking is carried out by women who can’t afford day-care costs and are grateful to have paid work (Manicom and Walters 1997:72). However, practices as well expand that convey together groups pretentious by economic reformation in new ways, such as trade unions support labor and community projects exterior their own national base. Likewise, information and communication technologies (ICTs) can be utilized by contradictory groupings. Affinity groups of ‘senior’ or retired citizens, feminist scholars, individuals who share knowledge on health afflictions, hobbyists, professionals, political organizations and many others are†¦using the Internet to educate, proselytise and organize, cutting across national boundaries with apparent ease. (Goodenow 1996:200) As notions of globalization both from below as well as from above help to reframe some of the varied potential within globalization, they as well present a explicit spatial association that seems to be set within specific binaries of above-below, power-resistance and domination liberation. In other words, this is an idea of globalization already included within specific politics, rather than, a reframing of the political and definitely a resistance to it. Conclusion Thus, to compete effectively, business organizations should develop a technology strategy. Moreover, as the concept of the globalization significantly extends this concept to government; not least by giving it an influential institutional framework, but does not significantly alter its function. The global economy does, though, stand in a different relation to the government since it is no longer neutral. It is still presented as apolitical, and is consequently still understood to be ‘economic’, but it has also become a normative and, certainly, normalizing, reality. The global economy functions in a different way with regard to the government; whilst movements in the world economy have long inclined economic policy within the government, the global economy presented as some new realism forces changes in national policy as a complete. This has the further significance, of forcing the government to distinguish between its proper function with regard to the global future and its function with regard to a sub-national, local past. Through the formation of the competition government, the homogeneity of the national economy though assumed in theory is cooperating in practice. The national private economy ceases to be believable as a homogenous unity and becomes a single but distinguished space. This has, certainly, always been the case, but the mobility of capital and the disintegration of the labor-intensive fordist production systems in the North has grinded the differences between regions of the similar government.